NEWS! Casey Anthony Case Proves Our Legal System Works
by Steven Birn
Casey Anthony found "not guilty" does not mean "innocent". Pictured Ms. Anthony with her attorney Cheney Mason.
The Casey Anthony trial ended yesterday with a not guilty verdict on the charges of murder, manslaughter and child endangerment. Normally we wouldn’t comment on sensational media trials like this but there are some important legal points to be made here. Many of my pro-life friends are outraged over the decision of the jury. We shouldn’t be so quick to discount what the jury felt was inadequate evidence. While there doesn’t appear to be justice for Miss Anthony’s child, western legal tradition was victorious and for that we should be thrilled.
English common law created the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal prosecutions. This standard was adopted by the several states and the Federal government. It is a very high standard, far higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard for finding parties liable in civil trials. It is also far higher than the clear and convincing evidence standard that is used for some governmental hearings and on some Constitutional law cases. If the standard were a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence in order to convict, Casey Anthony would likely be sitting on death row.
But the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and for that we must rejoice. This high burden of proof prevents the state from prosecuting every people on flimsy or inadequate evidence. This high standard prevents innocent parties like you and me from being subjected to criminal charges based on limited evidence. If it means that a few guilty parties walk free, so be it. The system protects the innocent.
August 9, 2005 – June 16, 2008? Caylee Anthony deserves justice! Will she ever get it? If not here on planet earth, there will be justice done at God's Judgment. No one escapes God's Final Judgment! No one, not ever!
I believe Casey Anthony killed her kid but I don’t believe the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I could see where a juror may have a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. Especially so after having spent weeks sequestered and focusing only on this case. I have no study to back this up but I believe that juries that are sequestered for long periods of time tend to deliver not guilty verdicts. They become desensitized to the murder itself and begin to view
it in a very clinical manner, which I believe gives rise to reasonable doubts. The O.J. Simpson murder trial and the Michael Jackson child molestation trial are good examples.
It must be noted that Anthony’s defense attorney did a great job. In high profile cases criminal defense attorneys create chaos so as to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Anthony’s attorney did just that. In zero profile cases, especially court appointed cases, defense attorneys often mail in their defense. That certainly wasn’t the case here. The defense did a good job for their client by turning the court into a three ring circus, which took away from the prosecutions case. A lot of people don’t like this sort of thing but the fact is that it’s the job of an attorney to vigorously defend his client and that surely happened here.
This case was a victory for the American court system because it proved that the court system works. The prosecution didn’t meet its burden of proof, Casey Anthony must walk free. Rather than be upset over the denial of justice for Miss Anthony’s daughter, we should be thankful that the burden of proof is so high. It protects average citizens, which Miss Anthony prior to this trial surely was, from media vipers like Nancy Grace and from the lynch mob. Our justice system works.
There’s a comprehensive article at Wikipedia about the “Death of Caylee Anthony” with footnotes.
Source of SteveBirnSpeaks is at WordPress Blog: http://wp.me/p1fm9a-b7
A brief excerpt from Wikipedia:
Caylee Marie Anthony (August 9, 2005 – c. June 16, 2008) [1] was a child from Orlando, Florida, whose disappearance in June 2008 attracted media attention throughout the United States. Caylee’s skeletal remains were discovered December 11, 2008, five months after she was reported missing by her grandmother, Cindy Anthony.[2] Her mother, Casey Anthony, decided not to report her daughter missing, and was indicted on charges of felony murder. She continued to maintain her innocence throughout her trial.
On July 5, 2011, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first degree murder (premeditated murder), second degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. She was fold guilty of four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. These charge are misdemeanors in the State of Florida.[3]
Disappearance and discovery
According to Casey Anthony’s father, George Anthony, Casey left the family’s home on June 16, 2008,[4] taking Caylee (who was almost 3) with her and did not return for 31 days.[5] Casey’s mother Cindy asked repeatedly during the month to see Caylee, but Casey claimed that she was too busy with a work assignment in Tampa, Florida. At other times, she said Caylee was with a nanny, later identified by Casey as Zenaida “Zanny” Fernandez-Gonzalez, or at theme parks or the beach.[6] It was eventually determined that although Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez did in fact exist, she had never met Casey nor Caylee Anthony, any member of the Anthony family, or any of Casey’s friends.[7]
On July 13, 2008, while doing yard work, Cindy and George Anthony found a notice from the post office for a certified letter affixed on their front door. George Anthony picked up the certified letter from the post office on July 15, 2008, and found that his daughter’s car was in a tow yard.[8] When George picked up the car, both he and the tow yard attendant noted a strong smell coming from the trunk. Both later testified that they believed the odor to be that of a decomposing body.[9] When the trunk was opened it contained a bag of trash, but no human remains.[10]
Caylee Anthony was reported missing to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office on July 15, 2008,[4] by her grandmother, Cindy. During the same call, Casey Anthony acknowledged to the 911 operator that Caylee had been missing “for 31 days”.[11][12] A distraught Cindy also told the 911 operator “There is something wrong. I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.”[13]
Continue reading the Wikipedia article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Anthony#Arrests_and_charges
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
posted December 2, 2011 at 8:16 am
I have not found what I wanted
posted November 23, 2011 at 8:22 am
Subscribed to your blog, thanks
posted November 23, 2011 at 6:32 am
Thank you, this is the worst thing I’ve read
posted November 17, 2011 at 11:32 am
Reading by way of your nice content, will help me to do so sometimes.
posted November 11, 2011 at 10:03 am
I’m a long time watcher and I just believed I’d drop by and say hello there for your very first time.
posted November 7, 2011 at 3:06 pm
It’s super blog, I want to be like you
posted October 27, 2011 at 9:47 am
Whoa! that post was quite helpful thanks.
posted October 17, 2011 at 3:54 pm
You are my role models. Thanks for the article
posted October 11, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Beautiful essay, got the pleasure of reading
posted October 11, 2011 at 9:11 am
Really worthwhile article. Pay attention
posted July 12, 2011 at 9:45 am
According to Rasmussen Polling, only 61% of the country believes Casey Anthony was guilty of murder. According to the poll 12% believe she’s not guilty and 27% aren’t sure. I’m here to tell you if you aren’t sure if she’s guilty or not then you aren’t going to convict. That means 39% of the country would have found Anthony not guilty, just like the jury.
I don’t think this case was as cut and dry as some might think. It was an extremely complicated case because there was no direct evidence of how the child died. Thus it became a battle of experts, which in my opinion creates reasonable doubt for a lot of people. I want justice for this poor little girl but not at the expense of weakening the judicial system in order to appease Nancy Grace and a vocal group of people who believe Miss Anthony is guilty.
posted July 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm
I would be far more concerned about judges making all the decisions. There are some good judges out there. But the overwhelming majority are at best mediocre. Most are lazy. The last thing an accused wants is to have some judge decide guilt.
Furthermore, you’re never going to be able to get away from some sort of adversarial system. Even in the system you suggest, you’re going to have a prosecutor presenting their case. Do you think they’re not going to present it in an adversarial way? Who is to protect the accused from prosecutorial misconduct? The judge? Who will notice such misconduct? Do you, as an accused person, want to rely upon a judge who doesn’t have your best interests in mind to protect you? I wouldn’t.
I really tire of hearing people complain about cases coming down to skilled lawyers. Skilled lawyering during trial really comes down to asking the right questions of the right people at the right time. Without a lawyer, you ensure a guilty verdict every single time because most accused don’t have the knowledge or ability to ask the right questions. Most people don’t have any experience in the legal system. They don’t know the rules, they don’t know the law.
I want to protect the accused, the Constitution seeks to protect the accused and so does scripture. The only way you’re going to protect the accused is to allow them to have legal counsel. The only way we can protect the innocent is to force the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Why people want to run from American law over one or two high profile not guilty verdicts is beyond me.
posted July 8, 2011 at 9:30 am
Steven,
There is something fundamentally wrong with a legal system where guilt or innocence is based on the lawyers’ performances rather than on what is the truth of the circumstances. Basically whet we’re operating on is the idea that a lie is as good as the truth if some lawyer can get the jury to believe it.
You asked what I’d prefer. The choice is not just between an adversarial system like what we have or no defense whatsoever. I’m sure you’re aware that there are systems called inquisitorial systems where the judge is not merely a neutral referee between the competing lawyers, but rather is empowered to take an active role in seeing that the trial proceeds in such a way that all the evidence comes out and that the truth of the matter is established. I’m not real comfortable with giving judges even more power than they have now, but the philosophy behind an inquisitorial system is better than what we operate on now. I think elements of an inquisitorial system could be added to our adversarial system to minimize the role of the lawyers.
posted July 7, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Manxman, I’m an attorney and I’ve been through voir dire plenty of times. It is not the goal of lawyers to seat the dumbest jurors possible. Sure, there are some jurors we would prefer over others. But that varies from case to case. It has more to do with their life experiences and potential biases than anything else.
My goal has never been to see the unintelligent on a jury. Why? Because they’re wild cards and very unpredictable. That’s the last thing an attorney wants on a jury. Even a criminal defense attorney doesn’t want the unintelligent on a jury. After all the unintelligent are just as easily lead by the prosecution as they are the defense.
You criticize our ‘adversarial justice system’ but what would you prefer happens? Would you prefer people whom the government has accused of crimes have no representation? That’s a sure fire way to guarantee a conviction every time. It’s also a sure fire way to guarantee abuse by the government.
posted July 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm
I totally agree with Mr. Birn. Our justice system worked! Unfortunately, that is not always the case. We are innocent, until proven guilty – not visa-versa.
I believe that Casey did kill her daughter. I think she wanted to ‘knock her out’ so that she could ‘party’. I can only imagine her horror upon finding her baby girl dead, due to her actions. I lost my young son due to natural causes, and almost didn’t make it to see today, I’m certain that wouldn’t be the case if I were responsible for his death.
The sad fact is, there are alot of young mothers guilty of ‘medicating’ their young children for the very same reason. I hope this case serves as a lesson for them.
Had the prosecutors charged Ms. Anthony correctly, she would have been found guilty. I’m certain she will pay for her lack of judgement for the rest of her life, during the moments she is not delusional. She needs professional help, and would have been required to get it as a condition of her probation, had she been charged correctly. Now it’s up to her, and making the right choices is not her ‘strong suit’.
I am relieved the jury did the ‘right’ thing, and I’m very ‘happy’(for lack of a better term) for George and Cindy, that they do not have to face the pain of losing their daughter in addition to losing their granddaughter. They are victims as well, and instead of death threats, they should recieve empathy and compassion, from all who followed this case.
posted July 7, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Steven,
Unfortunately, an adversarial “justice” system which is dependent on the skill of the prosecution or defense attorneys or the amount of money available for legal representation, can convict the innocent as well as freeing the guilty. I’m disturbed about how frequently Black men are being freed from prison as a result of DNA testing that occurs after the “system” has put them behind bars. There are some glaring, fundamental flaws in our legal system that can go either way, and unfortunately some of the biggest crooks and liars have the largest bankrolls to game the legal system.
As for the “reasonable doubt” thing, have you ever seen lawyers go through the jury selection process? It’s ludicrous. They work their butts off to seat the dumbest, most easily manipulated people they can find to populate the jury. I would hate to have to trust my fate to a so-called “jury of ones peers.”
posted July 7, 2011 at 12:56 pm
I fundementally disagree Manxman. The system works when the prosecutor doesn’t prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt and a jury finds the defendant not guilty. It protects the innocent and ensures that only truly guilty parties are punished by the state. If it means some guilty people walk in order to protect innocent parties from fines, inprisonment and the death penalty, so be it. The system worked.
Keep in mind, not guilty doesn’t equal innocent. Not guilty means the prosecutor didn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a 99.9% standard, not a 95% standard. I’m 95% certain Casey Anthony killed her kid. It’s that last 5% that protects the innocent even if it means letting some of the guilty free.
posted July 6, 2011 at 3:31 pm
I am not impressed with a system that is based on winning a court battle, often through slick lawyer tricks and manipulation of the law, rather than running an inquiry that primarily seeks truth as its goal.
Anyone who has ever served on a jury knows that there is a good chance that legal maneuvers prevent the jury from hearing all the evidence that’s available in a case.
Our system “worked” in this thing only if Casey Anthony really was innocent. If she was indeed guilty, her child wasn’t the only one who lost – it was all of us.